Vote Early and Vote Often!

EastCoastMojo wrote: Any suspicion that I might have that a fellow employee is stealing from the company is just that. Suspicion. And that alone does not give me the right to invade his home looking for the proof. I have not forgotten any of the senseless loss of life that this war has brought. I don't suspect any of us will for a long while.

That and the stealing analogy is a bad one because he didn't steal weapons from anyone. No one else was keeping books on what he had. Nor was he selling the weapons he had, or even misplacing them.

He also wasn't hurting us in this country, where the shop thief is harming his employer.

Saddam was far more interested in keeping his regime secure than any other motive.

Yes, I know the argument about "he might have sold them to people who might use them on us". That's hardly an eminent threat. Plus that goes against the prevailing argument that he was amassing weapons.

If you're really worried about corrupt people selling big dangerous weapons to god-knows-who... you're better off looking to the Soviet Bloc that can't be bothered to keep track of all those nuclear warheads that they'll never have a use for anymore.

Why didn't you call the thread, "Founder Early, Flounder Often"?

I think we two very accomplished, intellegent candidates running for the major parities. I think they have different views of the world and how to attack the problems at hand.

They ARE different. Vote for who you want.

Datsun1500 wrote:

I have not forgotten any of the senseless loss of life that this war has brought. I don't suspect any of us will for a long while.

You do of course realize that more people have been murdered in the state of Illinois during the same period.... Have you forgotten the senseless loss of life living in the midwest has brought us?

I was disctinctly unaware of that. Perhaps living in Illinois is unwise.

Tim Baxter wrote: The biggest problem (and arguably the biggest virtue) of the past 2 years or so with a Democratic congress is that they haven't done jack squat. I can't think of one single thing they've actually done. Of course, it's difficult when a president goes from having the lowest record of vetoes ever to the highest. But still, they're a bunch of spineless wonders, and I'm not sure sure how one can blame much on them, when they haven't DONE anything. For whatever it's worth though, I REALLY hope the Democrats don't get that supermajority.

Well, in two years, something can be done about it. The R's had their chance, and for the most part blew it. So badly that the repercussions will be finally felt on Tuesday.

They had a real, honest chance. Yes, the D's in the Senate managed to block some things from happening, specifically judge appointments, but in terms of legilsation, and budgeting, we got what they wanted to happen. And will be dealing with it for decades, if we ever manage to pay the debt.

And if Obama wins, and turns out to be a loser, 4 years is a pretty short time.

E-

alfadriver wrote:

Tim Baxter wrote: The biggest problem (and arguably the biggest virtue) of the past 2 years or so with a Democratic congress is that they haven't done jack squat. I can't think of one single thing they've actually done. Of course, it's difficult when a president goes from having the lowest record of vetoes ever to the highest. But still, they're a bunch of spineless wonders, and I'm not sure sure how one can blame much on them, when they haven't DONE anything. For whatever it's worth though, I REALLY hope the Democrats don't get that supermajority.

Well, in two years, something can be done about it. The R's had their chance, and for the most part blew it. So badly that the repercussions will be finally felt on Tuesday. They had a real, honest chance. Yes, the D's in the Senate managed to block some things from happening, specifically judge appointments, but in terms of legilsation, and budgeting, we got what they wanted to happen. And will be dealing with it for decades, if we ever manage to pay the debt. And if Obama wins, and turns out to be a loser, 4 years is a pretty short time. E-

No doubt that the R's really made a mess!

But, if Obama wins and has an un-tethered Democrat congress, he's got four years to inflict much more damage to the republic.

A tax and spend platform and a social-engineering agenda can make those four years an even worse long-term nightmare.

oldsaw wrote: A tax and spend platform and a social-engineering agenda can make those four years an even worse long-term nightmare.

Both candidates want to tax and spend. They just shift how much they want to tax who, and how much they want to spend on what.

Both parties want to social engineer. They just have different visions of what should be engineered, to what ends.

Salanis wrote:

oldsaw wrote: A tax and spend platform and a social-engineering agenda can make those four years an even worse long-term nightmare.

Both candidates want to tax and spend. They just shift how much they want to tax who, and how much they want to spend on what. Both parties want to social engineer. They just have different visions of what should be engineered, to what ends.

I agree with both of you, but I think you missed the point, Salanis.

If both parties want to tax and spend, but their agendas are different, they hold each other back (because they can't agree on how to tax and spend).

The House, Senate, and Executive offices all held by the same party opens a treasure trove of entitlement.

But wait, it gets better. Things are looking so bad for the Repubs, that there is a very real possibility of a Democratic supermajority in both branches of Congress. This would mean they can vote in ANYTHING they want, with NO input from the minority party whatsoever. None of us have seen this in our lifetimes. Hasn't happened since the 1930's. If this happens, expect the largest fundamental shift ever in the manner in which government functions. A regular Pandora's Box.

Salanis wrote:

oldsaw wrote: A tax and spend platform and a social-engineering agenda can make those four years an even worse long-term nightmare.

Both candidates want to tax and spend. They just shift how much they want to tax who, and how much they want to spend on what. Both parties want to social engineer. They just have different visions of what should be engineered, to what ends.

That was the whole point of Ron Paul's campaign. No social programs. No military spending past what we need to defend our own country. He couldn't even get enough votes to win the primary with that platform.

Just about everybody wants something from the government.

SVreX wrote:

Salanis wrote:

oldsaw wrote: A tax and spend platform and a social-engineering agenda can make those four years an even worse long-term nightmare.

Both candidates want to tax and spend. They just shift how much they want to tax who, and how much they want to spend on what. Both parties want to social engineer. They just have different visions of what should be engineered, to what ends.

I agree with both of you, but I think you missed the point, Salanis. If both parties want to tax and spend, but their agendas are different, they hold each other back (because they can't agree on how to tax and spend). The House, Senate, and Executive offices all held by the same party opens a treasure trove of entitlement. But wait, it gets better. Things are looking so bad for the Repubs, that there is a very real possibility of a Democratic supermajority in both branches of Congress. This would mean they can vote in ANYTHING they want, with NO input from the minority party whatsoever. None of us have seen this in our lifetimes. Hasn't happened since the 1930's. If this happens, expect the largest fundamental shift ever in the manner in which government functions. A regular Pandora's Box.

Didn't the Republicans almost have that for the first 6 years of the George W. Administration?

No, and according to Wiki the Dems have had control off virtually everything since 1953 up until the Repubs finally got a little congressional power during GW.

carguy123 wrote: No, and according to Wiki the Dems have had control off virtually everything since 1953 up until the Repubs finally got a little congressional power during GW.

Here? It says the Republicans controlled both houses from 1994 to 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

Well, I'm not so sure I'd call the "Republican Revolution" and the "Contract with America" to be a little congressional control. Dems controlled the congress for a long time. Then Newt and his buddies came into power and were going to "clean up" Washington.......uh huh...... They were going to cut spending, de-regulate, and make everything peachy.

The GOP had control of the congress, and White House from 2000 until 2006. The Dems got the Congress back in 2006.

It's funny and sad if you read campaign speeches from 20 years ago, or even 50 years ago. They all promise to "fix" education, protect the enviornment, and get us free from dependence of foreign oil. Oh yeah, and every 4 years a new savior will make our middle class more affluent, and make sure our health care system is affordable, and accessible. How's that working for you?

Funny, they keep saying the same old B.S. and we keep fighting over which political party is better, or worse. People actually get angry at the other side.....like there is actually a difference!

They both suck. We are on one team, they are on the other.

I'm gonna go ahead and be a dick

Yep. You should have downsized that gif to fit the forum.

Joe Gearin wrote: Well, I'm not so sure I'd call the "Republican Revolution" and the "Contract with America" to be a little congressional control. Dems controlled the congress for a long time. Then Newt and his buddies came into power and were going to "clean up" Washington.......uh huh...... They were going to cut spending, de-regulate, and make everything peachy. The GOP had control of the congress, and White House from 2000 until 2006. The Dems got the Congress back in 2006. It's funny and sad if you read campaign speeches from 20 years ago, or even 50 years ago. They all promise to "fix" education, protect the enviornment, and get us free from dependence of foreign oil. Oh yeah, and every 4 years a new savior will make our middle class more affluent, and make sure our health care system is affordable, and accessible. How's that working for you? Funny, they keep saying the same old B.S. and we keep fighting over which political party is better, or worse. People actually get angry at the other side.....like there is actually a difference! They both suck. We are on one team, they are on the other.

I <3 Joe the Salesguy.

Snowdoggie wrote:

carguy123 wrote: No, and according to Wiki the Dems have had control off virtually everything since 1953 up until the Repubs finally got a little congressional power during GW.

Here? It says the Republicans controlled both houses from 1994 to 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

But, they didn't have the 60+% majority needed to actually run anything. Plus, with Dems like Barney Frank screaming "racist" anytime anyone wanted to reign in things like Fannie Mae, moderate Republicans were often coerced into not voting the party line. And a lot of things never made it out of committee, where Dems were in power.

The upcoming supermajority will in fact be a vastly different scenario.

As for the war, in response to some other posts in the thread, there were a ton of reasons we ended the cease fire with Iraq, and yes, one of them was the threat of WMDs, which even caused the Clinton administration to draft and pass the Iraqi Liberation Act in '98 that set the stage for us to reopen a war that was never actually ended as soon as Saddam started massing to re-invade Kuwait.

But the cries of spending too much on the war really overlook the fact that the war is only a part of overall military spending (which covers everything from every military personnel worldwide to operations of every base and support facility, including places like Walter Reed military hospital and staff, and similar facilities around the world and nation) and that military spending is a relatively small part of the overal federal budget, with welfare and walfar related programs taking up the lion's share of it.

It also ignores the fact that most of the money spent on the military and the war goes directly back into US economic circulation in military, support, and contractor jobs nationwide. Think how much money companies like Lockheed martin, Northrop Grumman, et al spend on employees and facilities around the nation, as well as money they get that then goes to smaller subcontractors for parts and services. And other contractors that supply services in support of th emilitery, like the company my wife used to work for, Sierra Military, who administered the TriCare medical services contract. instead of a welfare payment, that pays people to not work, military spending pays people to work and stimulate the economy. people who end up saying that the money spent on teh military could be better spent at home forget that the money spent on the military is primarily spent at home. As a small eample, part of the Iraq budget is paying the soldiers and their support systems. My nephew is serving, and his paycheck comes home, and he's but one of many thousands like him.

Here in MD, the military budget pays for a LOT of jobs, even if those jobs are supporting the presence in Iraq.

Chris_V wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote:

carguy123 wrote: No, and according to Wiki the Dems have had control off virtually everything since 1953 up until the Repubs finally got a little congressional power during GW.

Here? It says the Republicans controlled both houses from 1994 to 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress

But, they didn't have the 60+% majority needed to actually run anything. Plus, with Dems like Barney Frank screaming "racist" anytime anyone wanted to reign in things like Fannie Mae, moderate Republicans were often coerced into not voting the party line. And a lot of things never made it out of committee, where Dems were in power.

A lot of democrats and moderate republicans were getting contributions from housing industry lobbyists to keep from reigning in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and cutting off their gravy train.

Chris_V wrote: As for the war, in response to some other posts in the thread, there were a ton of reasons we ended the cease fire with Iraq, and yes, one of them was the threat of WMDs, which even caused the Clinton administration to draft and pass the Iraqi Liberation Act in '98 that set the stage for us to reopen a war that was never actually ended as soon as Saddam started massing to re-invade Kuwait. But the cries of spending too much on the war really overlook the fact that the war is only a part of overall military spending (which covers everything from every military personnel worldwide to operations of every base and support facility, including places like Walter Reed military hospital and staff, and similar facilities around the world and nation) and that military spending is a relatively small part of the overal federal budget, with welfare and walfar related programs taking up the lion's share of it. It also ignores the fact that most of the money spent on the military and the war goes directly back into US economic circulation in military, support, and contractor jobs nationwide. Think how much money companies like Lockheed martin, Northrop Grumman, et al spend on employees and facilities around the nation, as well as money they get that then goes to smaller subcontractors for parts and services. And other contractors that supply services in support of th emilitery, like the company my wife used to work for, Sierra Military, who administered the TriCare medical services contract. instead of a welfare payment, that pays people to not work, military spending pays people to work and stimulate the economy. people who end up saying that the money spent on teh military could be better spent at home forget that the money spent on the military is primarily spent at home. As a small eample, part of the Iraq budget is paying the soldiers and their support systems. My nephew is serving, and his paycheck comes home, and he's but one of many thousands like him. Here in MD, the military budget pays for a LOT of jobs, even if those jobs are supporting the presence in Iraq.

So we should go out and start more wars in order to stimulate the economy?

That is what ultimately got the U.S. out of the great depression of the 1930's............. Of course we manufactured pretty much everything in this country back then, but the real stimulus was the huge leap in technology that came from WWII.

After WWII the economy was great guns and WWII did far more to put the U.S. at the top of the heap then any of the New Deal programs. Although some type of New deal programs would probably be just the ticket for America right now, our electrical grid, our roads, bridges, sewer systems, water supply, etc are all in dire need of attention and with current unemployment levels growing daily, I think that these masses of people could benifit tremedously from fixing our infrastructure. Putting people to work at improving all this would do wonders for the economy.

I was watching the T. Boone Pickens interview on 60 minutes last week and he was discussing his plan to make wind farms. 2500 turbines provides cheap electric power for 1.3 million homes. We need to up date the electrical grid, and some of the best areas of the country for wind farms are also some of the most economically depressed areas of the country.

Why can't we as a country make this type of thing happen? Chris Rummel

Snowdoggie wrote: So we should go out and start more wars in order to stimulate the economy?

Way to miss the point ENTIRELY. The argument is that the money spent on the war could be better spent at home, and the fact is it IS getting spent AT HOME.

Anything else you want to read into the argument is projecting.

Chris_V wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: So we should go out and start more wars in order to stimulate the economy?

Way to miss the point ENTIRELY. The argument is that the money spent on the war could be better spent at home, and the fact is it IS getting spent AT HOME. Anything else you want to read into the argument is projecting.

But it is not spent on industrial capacity or infrastructure that would actually build up the economy or improve the country. It is spent on weapons that are destroyed in a foriegn country.

Meanwhile, China is at peace and building factories.

Completely ignoring the fact that wars have historically been times of massive government deficits and the concept of post-war economic boom times doesn't hold up when you actually chart it out, there's a big difference between WWII --the war most often used as an example of how war is "good" for the economy and now: In WWII, industry had to mobilize to produce a lot of heavy goods... airplanes, tanks, jeeps, etc. For a given dollar the gov. spent on the war, quite a few people had to be put to work. And quite a few people were put to work dealing with the raw resources.

With today's high-tech military there's nowhere near as much hands-on labor. On the manufacturing floor its roboticized, and you just don't need a lot of labor for the raw materials in microchips and such.

In other words, once the massive gov't spending went pretty immediately to the workforce. Not so anymore.

So you don't think that the massive workforce around me doing military contracts exists? Or any of the other support infrastructure I mentioned? For example, Lockheed Martin doesn't employ anyone and the money paid to Lockheed Martin as a military contractor simply vanishes from the economy? Only robots are working at Walter Reed military hospital?

So where DO you think the money goes?

Chris_V wrote: So where DO you think the money goes?

Hookers and gin.